Here are biotechnology-derived bluegrass plants exhibiting dwarfing characteristics. The plant on the far right is a control
plant. The second plant from the right has been modified but is not showing a response. The remaining plants are showing varying
degrees of dwarfing right down to the bonsai bluegrass plant on the far left.
|
With more than 25 million golfers playing an estimated 550 million rounds of golf a year, turfgrass managers should feel proud
about their impact on America's health, fitness and happiness. Unfortunately, today's turfgrass managers don't have the luxury
to take a minute to appreciate the impact of their work. Time, budget and natural resource issues are constantly pulling them
in different directions.
Superintendents are constantly striving to improve turf while being held hostage by both the clock and dollar, not to mention
trying to reduce pesticide applications and water use.
Companies that supply products to turfgrass professionals have realized the presence of these pressures and are working diligently
to develop products to minimize them. Breeders have been working to improve attractiveness, durability, pest resistance, stress
tolerance and yield for decades (Barker and Kalton, 1989). However, many of the traits desired by turfgrass professionals
are not attainable by traditional breeding.
Quick Tip
|
For over a decade, biotechnology has been touted as the new tool that will help us use modern science to overcome many of
the obstacles that face breeders. In fact, several reviews [Lee, 1996; Chai and Sticklen, 1998; Edminister, 2000] and a book
[Sticklen and Kenna, 1998] have been written on the targets and potential of biotechnology. The Scotts Co. has been using
biotechnology since 1995 to develop new turfgrass products that improve performance and reduce pesticide inputs.
While turfgrass biotechnology has certainly advanced since the development of transgenic orchardgrass in 1988, the industry
still does not have a biotech-enhanced turfgrass on the market. Despite the lack of a current commercial product, biotechnology's
future is bright.
In 1996, The Scotts Co.'s Lisa Lee presented an update on the current state of affairs of plant biotechnology and highlighted
herbicide-tolerance as one of its important targets. Benli Chai and Mariam Sticklen from Michigan State University outlined
four categories for "Application(s) of Biotechnology in Turfgrass Genetic Improvement" in their 1998 review article, including:
- applications of molecular markers to assist breeding practice;
- in vitro manipulations for regenerable tissue culture;
- genetic engineering by DNA transfer techniques; and
- the use of fungal endophytes to improve turfgrass performance.
These categories have not only remained pertinent, but significant scientific advancement has occurred.
At the Millennium Turfgrass Conference held in Melbourne, Australia, in June 2000, Craig Edminister of Cebeco International
Seeds identified herbicide resistance, insect resistance, salt tolerance and disease resistance as important traits that would
be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to deliver using traditional breeding methods.
In Turfgrass Biotechnology, edited by Mariam Sticklen (MSU) and Mike Kenna (USGA) in 1998, Mike challenged turfgrass scientists
to "aim for the moon." For this article, we will focus on biotech-enhancement through gene insertion, often referred to as
genetic engineering. Will science deliver on Edminister's list of traits? You decide if scientists are indeed aiming for the
moon and likely to make a successful landing in efforts to develop improved turfgrass performance.
Herbicide resistance As predicted [Lee, 1996] and suggested in an outline of significant biotechnology milestones (Table 1), the first turfgrass
enhanced by biotechnology should be herbicide-tolerant creeping bentgrass.
Table 1.
|
Table 1 also points out the lengthy timelines involved in the development, testing and regulatory review needed to introduce
a biotechnology-derived product. It often takes several years of research to develop even the well-understood, single-gene
modifications currently on the market. New genes or complex traits can take a decade or more to identify, refine and develop.
Once a commercial candidate is identified, the regulatory process can take from five to seven years to navigate. Therefore,
even for technology that is "proven," it will take six to nine years for a product's benefits to be experienced.
The development of Roundup Ready creeping bentgrass is certainly baring this out.
Disease resistance Commercial-level disease resistance has proven elusive. Expression of single and even multiple forms of disease-resistance
genes, such as chitinase, glucanase and anti-fungal proteins, slowed the rate of infection but have not resulted in long-lasting
disease control.
New efforts aimed at expressing a battery of resistance genes or approaches that detoxify products generated by attacking
pathogens hold promise that engineered resistance may one day be available to turfgrass managers [Hirt, 2002].
Insect resistance Insect resistance in agriculture is a banner child of biotech's awesome potential.
The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy has determined that biotechnological corn resulted in a 3.5 billion pound
yield increase and $125 million in additional income, while biotechnological cotton contributed 185 million more pounds and
$102 million in additional income (Council For Biotechnology Information - www.whybiotech.com).
While biotechnological advances are the primary sources of insect resistance, additional protein leads are being evaluated,
such as cowpea protease trypsin inhibitor in oil palm [Abdullah et al., 2002]. In spite of agriculture's success with insect
resistance, we are unaware of any turfgrass biotechnology group currently evaluating the potential of insect resistance.
